People v. Lloyd
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law—validity of probation conditions and constitutional challenges to New York firearm possession statutes post-New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
The Supreme Court, Kings County accepted Lloyd’s guilty plea to criminal possession of a firearm and imposed a probation condition requiring him to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities.
Condition No. 14 of the probation terms was deleted; the conviction and sentence were otherwise affirmed.
Because the condition violated Penal Law § 65.10(1) [statute outlining permissible conditions of probation and conditional discharge], as conceded by the People; Lloyd’s constitutional challenges to Penal Law §§ 265.03(3) [criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree], 265.01-b(1) [criminal possession of a firearm], 265.01(1) [criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree], and Administrative Code § 10-131(i)(3) [New York City provision regulating weapons] were unpreserved and, in any event, meritless in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (597 US 1) [holding that firearm regulations must align with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation].
Background
Lloyd was indicted for, among other charges, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3] [criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree]) and criminal possession of a firearm (Penal Law § 265.01-b[1] [criminal possession of a firearm]). He pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a firearm and received a probationary sentence that included Condition No. 14 requiring him to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities. On appeal, he also argued that Penal Law §§ 265.03(3), 265.01-b(1), 265.01(1) [criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree], and Administrative Code § 10-131(i)(3) [New York City provision regulating weapons] are unconstitutional after New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (597 US 1) [holding that firearm regulations must align with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation].
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County accepted the guilty plea to Penal Law § 265.01-b(1) and imposed probation with Condition No. 14 requiring support of dependents and other family responsibilities.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified by deleting Condition No. 14 as it violated Penal Law § 65.10(1) [statute outlining permissible conditions of probation and conditional discharge], and otherwise affirmed. The court held that the constitutional challenges to Penal Law §§ 265.03(3), 265.01-b(1), 265.01(1) and Administrative Code § 10-131(i)(3) were unpreserved, and, even if reviewed, lacked merit because Bruen did not affect the constitutionality of New York’s criminal possession statutes. The sentence was not excessive.
Legal Significance
Confirms that a generic probation condition requiring a defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities is not authorized under Penal Law § 65.10(1) [statute outlining permissible conditions of probation and conditional discharge]. Reaffirms, post-Bruen, the continuing constitutionality of New York’s criminal possession of weapon/firearm statutes and the necessity of preserving constitutional challenges in the trial court.
Appellate courts will strike unauthorized probation conditions under Penal Law § 65.10(1), but New York’s firearm possession statutes remain constitutional post-Bruen, and constitutional challenges must be preserved in the trial court.